Plutus Trade Base 50% Off Flash Sale Promotion

I am documenting this case because it exposes serious inconsistencies in how this firm evaluates traders — especially at the payout stage. My Account #28847 (100K 2-Step account) highlights serious inconsistencies in how payout reviews are being handled. I received two payout rejections on the same account, and the reasoning between them directly contradicts each other.
First Payout Rejection ($8,299.98)
The stated issue was:
- Excessive risk exposure (large lot size)
Important context:
- I place only one trade at a time
- Every trade has a stop loss
- I trade exclusively on BTC/USD
Based on this feedback, I fully adjusted my approach:
- Reduced lot size from 2.0 → 0.5
- Completed all required conditions, including:
- 7 additional profitable days
- Required net minimum profit 1% daily, which is ($1,000) per day
- Consistency rules
- Improved risk management
At this stage, there was:
- No mention of HFT-style behavior
- No concern about execution speed or frequency
- No issue with trading patterns
Also important:
- My trading is 100% manual scalping
- The account included an HFT Allowed add-on also
Second Payout Rejection ($16,875.89)
After fully complying with all corrective requirements and passing all dashboard metrics, I submitted a second payout.
This time, the rejection reasons were completely different:
- “HFT-style trading behavior”
- “Statistically unrealistic consistency (19 winning days)”
- “Commission-dependent strategy”
The Core Issue — Clear Contradiction. This creates a fundamental inconsistency. If my trading genuinely violated HFT-related rules, why was this not identified during the first payout review?
Instead:
- I was instructed to fix risk-related issues
- I complied fully
- Then a completely new set of violations was introduced
My trading approach did not change:
- Same manual execution
- Same scalping strategy
- No automation
- No change in behavior between payout cycles
In fact, the second phase had stricter requirements, yet suddenly my trading became “non-compliant.”
- How are 19 consecutive winning days considered “statistically unrealistic”?
- Why was the same trading pattern previously accepted, but later used to reject payout and terminate the account?
This strongly suggests:
- Retroactive rule enforcement
- Outcome-based decisions triggered at payout stage
Rejecting a payout is one thing. Rejecting it using entirely different reasoning raises serious concerns about consistency and fairness.
By citing hidden policies and endless compliance loops to reject legitimate payouts, PTB has compromised user trust. Traders should proceed only with extreme caution.

Yo buddies this is honestly
Totally scam firm they rejected my payout bcz i have 100% win-rate no loss day ..
they have payout rule of 5 days i wait for one month

fake firm don't buy any challenge. Very high spillage and irregular sl. scam firm

Never again!! Worst customer service of all prop firm i encounter. Please dont support this prop firm you will have hypertension with them.

Dicline payout no issues
Payout Submitted
Hi Md pervej,
Your withdrawal request has been successfully submitted and received. Our back office administrative team will process the payment, which typically takes 24-48 hours.
 
 
Withdrawal Request Details
 
 
Date Requested: 2026-04-27 08:14:08 UTC
Account Number: 27984
Withdrawal Amount: 88712.52
Payout: 84276.89
Note, when a withdrawal is approved, we will also withdraw our share of the account gains.
but 3 days later
Md pervej
Your payout request has been rejected. The reason for the rejection was:
Your payout request has been reviewed and unfortunately it has been rejected. After a full risk and compliance review, your account has been classified as high risk and does not meet our funded account standards for payout eligibility.
and closed my account
that was advanture account